Adidas stands as one of the most recognizable activewear and sportswear giants on the global stage. Founded in 1949 in Bavaria, Germany, by Adolf "Adi" Dassler—brother of Puma founder Rudolf Dassler—the brand has evolved from a small shoe factory into a multibillion-dollar powerhouse. Famous for its iconic three-stripe logo, timeless Stan Smith sneakers, and high-profile collaborations with designers like Stella McCartney, Adidas supplies athletic gear to millions of athletes and consumers worldwide. Yet, as consumer consciousness shifts toward ethical consumption, major corporations face heightened scrutiny over their social and environmental footprints.
According to the January 2026 brand rating published by ethical fashion watchdog Good On You, Adidas holds a middling "It’s a Start" rating. This evaluation places the German sportswear titan alongside its chief rival, Nike, which shares the exact same tier. While an "It’s a Start" score indicates that a brand is taking some initial actions to address its impact, it ultimately demonstrates that neither industry leader is doing nearly enough given their immense market power and influence. To understand what this rating truly means for consumers, it is essential to examine the publicly available evidence across three critical pillars: environmental impact, labor rights, and animal welfare.
Environmental Impact: Progress and Pitfalls
In the realm of environmental stewardship, Adidas maintains an "It’s a Start" score, showing no movement from its previous evaluation. The brand utilizes a medium proportion of lower-impact materials and publishes an aggregate breakdown of the fabrics it uses in its collections. However, given that activewear production relies heavily on synthetics and chemical treatments—the very core of Adidas’s business model—industry experts expect a much wider adoption of innovative, lower-impact alternatives to combat the systemic unsustainability of virgin polyester.
The challenges surrounding the brand’s environmental marketing came under intense public scrutiny earlier in 2026. An advertisement promoting Adidas’s "recycled running shoes" was officially banned in the United Kingdom by the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA). The regulatory body ruled that the marketing claims were too vague to substantiate. Reports from The Guardian revealed that Adidas subsequently confirmed it did not actually possess a dedicated "recycled running shoe range." Instead, the company clarified that certain products across its broader collections simply incorporated some recycled materials.
While Adidas defended its position by stating it held internal product documentation to support these claims, the controversy highlights a broader industry problem: if the underlying evidence remains hidden from the public, consumers cannot truly understand the environmental value of what they are purchasing. Critics argue that such marketing strategies allow brands to capitalize on consumer desire for lower-impact materials without providing the rigorous, transparent assurances necessary to justify their claims.
On a more positive note, Adidas has made headway in climate accountability. The company has established a science-based target aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions across both its direct operations and its extended supply chain. Furthermore, the brand regularly publishes progress reports and claims to be on track to meet these goals—a vital step toward transparency. Nevertheless, critical gaps remain. Independent reviews continue to find no evidence that Adidas has implemented comprehensive policies to protect biodiversity within its supply chain, a foundational criterion in modern sustainability methodologies that was also flagged during previous evaluations.
Labor Conditions: Falling Short on Workers’ Rights
When examining labor rights, Adidas struggles significantly, retaining a "Not Good Enough" rating from Good On You. Because people form the backbone of the global fashion and manufacturing industries, sustainability experts argue that brands must take concrete, verifiable actions to protect workers rather than relying solely on surface-level supplier audits.
While Adidas has initiated projects aimed at improving wage structures and reportedly pays a living wage to some workers stationed at the final stage of production, this progress falls far short of what is expected from a multinational corporation of its scale. Disappointingly, the brand emerged as one of the lowest-scoring entities in the latest edition of the Clean Clothes Campaign’s living wage monitoring project, known as Fashion Checker.
Transparency in the supply chain remains another hurdle. Although Adidas has published some details regarding suppliers in the second and final stages of production, industry best practices dictate that brands should also disclose information deeper down the supply chain, where tracking labor conditions and ensuring fair treatment is notoriously difficult.
Furthermore, research indicates that the brand has considerable room for improvement regarding worker empowerment. Fewer than half of its supplier factories feature democratically elected unions or effective collective bargaining agreements. Given historical labor rights violations linked to the brand’s supply chain—such as wage theft incidents in Cambodia—safeguarding and strengthening workers’ rights should be an urgent priority. On the positive side, Adidas does provide a confidential complaints mechanism, allowing workers in its supply chain to report suspected modern slavery safely.
Animal Welfare: Gradual Steps Forward
Adidas fares somewhat better in animal welfare, maintaining an "It’s a Start" rating backed by a formal animal welfare policy, though it does not fully align with the comprehensive "Five Freedoms" framework.
The brand avoids using fur, exotic animal hair, and angora wool. A major milestone occurred in 2025 when Adidas officially halted the use of kangaroo leather in its sneaker lines, a move widely praised by animal rights advocates. Despite these positive developments, the company still utilizes down feathers, conventional wool, cashmere, and leather. While some of these animal-derived materials are sourced as recycled or certified alternatives, reviewers noted at the time of the latest rating review that the brand had yet to make public commitments regarding the certification of its leather production—an obvious next step for ethical sourcing.
At the same time, Adidas has proven that it is capable of effective action when pressured. The brand explicitly avoids sourcing wool from mulesed sheep, backing this stance with public commitments, including signing the Four Paws Letter of Intent against the practice.
Navigating Sustainable Consumption
Ultimately, Adidas’s "It’s a Start" rating reflects a brand making incremental progress while lagging behind what its immense resources and global influence allow. Observers emphasize that consumers who already own Adidas products should not feel guilty or discard them; keeping existing garments in rotation for as long as possible remains one of the most environmentally responsible actions an individual can take.
For shoppers wishing to align their purchases more closely with their personal values, ethical ratings platforms recommend exploring slower, more transparent fashion models. Alternative brands such as Purusha People, Happy Earth, Flamingos’ Life, and ID.EIGHT offer varying approaches to organic materials, vegan construction, and supply chain transparency, providing conscious consumers with viable alternatives in the activewear and footwear markets.
